1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Where an usufruct is bequeathed, the right of accrual between usufructuaries only exists where the usufruct is left conjointly; but where it is left separately to each one of the parties, the right of accrual undoubtedly ceases to exist. 1Hence, it is asked by Julianus in the Thirty-fifth Book of the Digest, if an usufruct is left to a slave owned in common, and is acquired by both owners, whether if one of them rejects or loses the usufruct, the other shall have the whole of it? He thinks that it belongs to the other, and even though the usufruct was acquired by the owner of the slave, not in equal shares but in shares corresponding to their interest in the slave; still, the personality of the slave and not that of the owners must be considered; so that it belongs to one of the owners and does not accrue to the mere property. 2He also says that where an usufruct is bequeathed to a slave owned in common, and to Titius separately, and the usufruct is lost by the other joint owner, it will not belong to Titius, but to the remaining owner alone, as he was the only one who had a right to it jointly; and this opinion is the correct one, for as long as only one is making use of the property, it may be said that the usufruct is in its former condition. The same rule applies where the usufruct is left to two persons jointly, and to another separately. 3Ad Dig. 7,2,1,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 645, Note 2.Sometimes, however, even if the parties were not joint legatees, the usufruct bequeathed vests in one of them by accrual; as, for instance, where the usufruct of an entire estate is left to me separately, and it is left to you in the same way. For (as Celsus states in the Eighteenth Book, and Julianus in the Thirty-fifth Book of the Digest), we hold shares by concurrence; and this would also happen so far as the ownership is concerned; for if one rejected it, the other would be entitled to the entire estate. But there is this point in addition with reference to the usufruct; since it has been created and afterwards lost, the right of accrual, nevertheless, exists, for all authors quoted by Plautius are of this opinion; and, (as Celsus and Julian very properly say) an usufruct is created and bequeathed every day, and not, like ownership, only at the time when an action can be brought to recover it. Thus, as soon as either party does not find anyone associated with him, he alone can make use of the entire usufruct; nor does it make any difference whether it was jointly or severally bequeathed. 4Julianus also states in the Thirty-fifth Book of the Digest, that where two heirs have been appointed and the mere ownership bequeathed, the usufruct being reserved; the heirs have no right of accrual, for the usufruct is held to have been created, not divided by concurrence;

2Africanus, Questions, Book V. Wherefore any part of the usufruct which has been lost reverts to the legatee who is the owner of the mere property.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Neratius, in the First Book of Opinions, thinks that the right of accrual is extinguished under such circumstances; and the principle stated by Celsus agrees with this opinion, namely, that the right of accrual exists where two parties have the entire usufruct, and it is divided between them by their association. 1Therefore, Celsus states in the Eighteenth Book, that where two owners of an estate convey the property after having reserved the usufruct of the same, and either of them loses his usufruct, it will revert to the mere property, but not to all of it; for the usufruct of each accrues to the share which each one conveyed, and it must revert to the share from which, in the beginning, it was separated. 2Ad Dig. 7,2,3,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 205, Note 4; Bd. III, § 645, Note 3.But not only the right of accrual exists where an usufruct is bequeathed to two parties, but also where it is bequeathed to one, and the estate to another; for if the one to whom an usufruct was left should lose it, it will belong to the other rather through the right of accrual than by reversion to the property; nor is there anything unusual in this, for where an usufruct is bequeathed to two persons and, while held by one of them, is merged into the mere property, the right of accrual is not lost either by him with whom it was merged, nor by him for the benefit of the other; and no matter how he may have lost his usufruct before the merger, he may lose it in the same manner now. This opinion is held by Neratius and Aristo, and is approved by Pomponius.

4Julianus, Digest, Book XXXV. Where the mere property in an estate is bequeathed to you, and the usufruct of the same estate to me and Mævius, you, Mævius, and I will each have a third part of the usufruct, and the other third part will be merged in the property. But if either I or Mævius should lose our civil rights, a third part will be divided between you and one or the other of us, so that the one who has not lost his civil rights will have half the usufruct, and the property along with the remaining half of the usufruct will belong to you.

5Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book VII. And if you convey the property to anyone after the usufruct has been reserved, Julianus thinks that, nevertheless, the right of accrual will exist; and that you are not considered to acquire a new usufruct.

6Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. The same rule applies where the usufruct is merged in property in the hands of one of three usufructuaries. 1But where property is bequeathed to anyone, the usufruct having been reserved, and a portion of the usufruct is bequeathed to me; it should be considered whether the right of accrual exists between me and the heir? The correct opinion is, however, that if anyone loses the usufruct it reverts to the property. 2Where the usufruct of an estate is left to me absolutely, and to you under a certain condition, it can be said that the usufruct of the entire estate belongs to me in the meantime, and that if I should lose my civil rights the entire usufruct will be lost; but if the condition is complied with, the entire usufruct will belong to you if I should lose my civil rights, but if I retain my condition, the usufruct must be divided between us.

7Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. Where anyone bequeaths an usufruct to Attius and his heirs, Attius will be entitled to half the same, and his heirs to the remaining half. Where, however, the language is, “To Attius and Seius together with my heirs”; the usufruct will be divided into three parts, of which the heirs will have one, Attius one, and Seius one; nor does it make any difference whether the bequest is to A and B with Mævius, or “to A and B and Mævius”.

8Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Where an usufruct is bequeathed to a woman, “with her children”; and she loses her children, she will be entitled to the usufruct; but where the mother dies, her children will, nevertheless, be entitled to the usufruct by the right of accrual. For, as Julianus remarks in the Thirtieth Book of the Digest, the same rule must be understood to apply where a testator appoints his children his sole heirs; even though he does not name them as legatees, but only wishes to make it more plain that the mother shall enjoy the estate, and have her children enjoy it with her. But Pomponius makes the inquiry: “What if the children and the foreign heirs are mingled together?” He says that the children must be understood to be legatees; and, on the other hand, if the testator wished his children to enjoy the estate along with their mother, it must be held that the mother should be understood to be a legatee; so, in this instance, the effect of the law will be in every respect similar to that previously mentioned.

9Africanus, Questions, Book V. Where the mere property of an estate is bequeathed to two parties and the usufruct to one, all of them are not entitled to third parts of the usufruct, but two of them take half and the usufructuary the other half. On the other hand the same rule applies where there are two usufructuaries and one legatee of the estate.

10Ad Dig. 7,2,10Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 645, Note 4.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. Sometimes a share of the usufruct is obtained through accrual by a party who has no share of his own, but has lost it; for if an usufruct is bequeathed to two persons, and one of them, after issue is joined, loses his usufruct, and soon after his co-legatee who did not join issue loses his also; then the one who joined issue against the party who offered himself to defend the suit, will obtain from the possessor only the half which he lost; for the share of his co-legatee will belong to him by accrual, but not to the owner of the property; for the usufruct accrues to the person, even though it may have been lost.

11Papinianus, Definitions, Book II. Where an usufruct in the same thing is bequeathed to different persons at the charge of different heirs, the usufructuaries are not less held to be separate than if the usufruct of the same property had been bequeathed to the two in equal shares; whence it happens that no right of accrual exists between them:

12Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVII. Since each legatee can bring an action against one of the heirs to recover the usufruct.